From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:35464) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvoiY-0000Ne-1i for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:32:42 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvoiS-0006QD-EQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:32:41 -0500 Received: from david.siemens.de ([192.35.17.14]:27066) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvoiS-0006Q7-35 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:32:36 -0500 Message-ID: <4F350047.4030507@siemens.com> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:32:23 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <201202100952.26104.paul@codesourcery.com> <4F34F567.3040309@redhat.com> <201202101109.03374.paul@codesourcery.com> <4F34FCF3.4080300@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4F34FCF3.4080300@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 6/6] qemu_calculate_timeout: increase minimum timeout to 1h List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , Paul Brook , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , "avi@redhat.com" , Stefano Stabellini On 2012-02-10 12:18, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 02/10/2012 12:19 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> I think you are right and the right thing to do would be blocking >> indefinitely. >> However if slirp doesn't support it, we could have a timeout of 1000 if >> CONFIG_SLIRP, otherwise block indefinitely. > > You could add a similar hack to qemu_bh_update_timeout for > slirp_update_timeout. Real solutions would be preferred, but I know that the code is hairy. In any case, please no CONFIG_SLIRP code forks. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux